Force: threat vs. use

[rahvin]

Is the threat of force an equal violation of rights as the use of force? 

Do both deserve the same self defense response? 

What do you think?

[Freya]

Is the threat of force an equal violation of rights as the use of force? 

Do both deserve the same self defense response? 

What do you think?

It depends on the situation, threats of force can be as serious as the actual use of force. Usually I think threats should be handled mildly unless they persist. I don't think you should kill someone who you are having an arguement with and he in the heat of the arguement threatens violence. Usually there is no intention to back up those threats.

But technically though once someone initiates coercion, they give up their rights. Its up to the recipient (or his defense agency) to decide how to respond.

[rahvin]

I saw an argument that said it would be immoral to kill someone who broke into your home.  The given reason was that you didn't know if they were there simply to steal from you or intimidate you; therefore, using lethal force would be an unjust escalation. 

My answer to that argument was that it's not incumbent upon the victim to magically know the aggressor's intentions, but I'm looking for a more fundamental argument that will apply to all situations. 

[Linux]

I saw an argument that said it would be immoral to kill someone who broke into your home.  The given reason was that you didn't know if they were there simply to steal from you or intimidate you; therefore, using lethal force would be an unjust escalation. 

My answer to that argument was that it's not incumbent upon the victim to magically know the aggressor's intentions, but I'm looking for a more fundamental argument that will apply to all situations. 

I would add to that. The fact that the person has broken into your home means that they are currently knowingly encroaching upon your property.

[daprovic]

I saw an argument that said it would be immoral to kill someone who broke into your home.  The given reason was that you didn't know if they were there simply to steal from you or intimidate you; therefore, using lethal force would be an unjust escalation. 

My answer to that argument was that it's not incumbent upon the victim to magically know the aggressor's intentions, but I'm looking for a more fundamental argument that will apply to all situations. 

This is easily resolved through contract law. In a free society, everybody would be enticed to have insurance. You would have to agree to certain clauses in your contract with your insurer, such as you forfeiting your rights when you break into someone's home, etc.

[daprovic]

I saw an argument that said it would be immoral to kill someone who broke into your home.  The given reason was that you didn't know if they were there simply to steal from you or intimidate you; therefore, using lethal force would be an unjust escalation. 

My answer to that argument was that it's not incumbent upon the victim to magically know the aggressor's intentions, but I'm looking for a more fundamental argument that will apply to all situations. 

It is moral to kill anyone who threatens your life.

[DROI]

I would say that anyone who does not respect your property, by way of threat or force, does not deserve any respect for their property.

'Does not deserve any respect for their property' works for both defending yourself and when seeking restitution.

[braindead0]

IMO you need to factor ability, in other words can the do what they threaten to do.

In a case where someone readily has the means (say they are holding a shotgun), I believe that would justify force necessary to neutralize the threat.

Threat of force where the person has a contact weapon (club, knife, etc.) if they are within 21' and I have a firearm available (pretty much always ;-) I will draw and defend myself/family as required. (see Tueller Drill for reasoning behind 21'.. hopefully everyone here has done that drill)

Lastly, if someone is making threats and does not have the means to carry out those threats.  They are ignored.

Hot burglary or home invasion is a bit different.  As far as I'm concerned if someone breaks into my house, they have already committed a violent act and likely have no compunctions against committing more violence.   I will assume they are a criminal, likely to be a very capable fighter and a deadly threat to myself and family. Deal with accordingly.

[MAM]

This based purely on this situation. Someone saying I'm going to kill you is a lot different than them showing up at your door with a gun. If someone on the internet threatens me I ignore it. If someone is actually in front trying to hurt me I defend myself.